Com. v. Mattero

• Decision Date: 11 June 1957
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony MATTERO, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Frank DRILL, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel DRILL, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 905

132 A.2d 905

183 Pa.Super. 548

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony MATTERO, Appellant.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Frank DRILL, Appellant.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel DRILL, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

June 11, 1957.

Joseph W. deFuria, Chester, for appellants.

John R. Graham, Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, for appellee.

HIRT, Acting P. J., and GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and WATKINS, JJ.

WOODSIDE, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed by the court below after its refusal to grant motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial to the three defendants who had been convicted before a jury on a charge of bookmaking.

Each defendant was indicted separately for violation of Section 607 of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, 18 P.S. § 4607 relating to pool-selling and book-making.

As the defendants did not testify or present any evidence on their behalf, we must assume that the jury believed the Commonwealth's testimony. From this evidence it appears that Daniel and Frank Drill and William Del Vecchio owned a three story building containing a poolroom and an empty store on the first floor, and apartments on the second and third floors. It is located at 1427 Chester Pike, Ridley Township, Delaware County. Daniel and William also owned a one story taproom known as 'Drill's Tavern', located approximately 15 feet from the poolroom, and separated from it by an alleyway. Each building has doors opening into the alleyway opposite each other. The Drills are also known as Del Vecchios.

Several state policemen entered the side door of the poolroom at 12:40 p. m. on April 19, 1956, and found it unoccupied. Officer Dietrich then entered the taproom through the side door, found Frank and Daniel Drill there, brought them over to the poolroom, and searched them. Daniel Drill had two pieces of paper and $48.50 in his trouser pocket and Frank had 4 slips of paper and $230 on his person. Officer Cohen, testifying as an expert, said the papers found on these two defendants were horse bet slips of the type carried by bookmakers and not players.

Two of the other officers, upon entering the poolroom, heard a noise on the second floor, went upstairs and knocked on a closed door. No one answered the knock on the door. The officers smelled smoke and broke in. They found Anthony Mattero, a defendant in this case, in the apartment near numerous pieces of paper which were burning in a pan on the gas stove. Mattero admitted to Officer McCartney that he was burning an Armstrong racing sheet, and some horse race bets. The officers searched Mattero and found $270 on him. The telephone rang and a voice said: 'This is Larry'. He asked for odds on a horse, and then placed a bet.

Mattero admitted to Officer Weiner that he was taking bets for a friend.

Frank Drill admitted to Officer Cohen at the hearing that he had 'taken a bet from a kid' just before the raid.

Mrs. Keenan, the tenant in the second floor apartment, testified that Daniel Drill made arrangements with her on April 17th to use her telephone in her apartment for a few days by putting an extension on it. When the officers arrived, Mattero told Mrs. Keenan not to open the door, and immediately began to burn papers. He then tried to leave the apartment by the back steps.

A wastebasket in the poolroom contained torn slips of paper which were pieced together. These, and other papers, were identified by Sergeant Cohen as containing names of horses running at certain tracks on April 19, and on several days prior thereto.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. In an effort to obtain a new trial the appellants raise a number of objections to the conduct of their trial.

It is their contention, first, that since the three defendants were separately indicted it was error to try them together. The three defendants were arrested in a single raid, and much of the evidence would have been the same had each been tried separately. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to determine whether a number of bills of indictment should be consolidated and tried together. His exercise of this discretion will not be reversed by an appellate court unless there has been a manifest abuse, or a joint trial is so unfair as to be clearly unjust and prejudicial to one or more of the defendants. Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 1954, 378 Pa. 412, 415, 106 A.2d 820; Commonwealth v. Dixon, 1955, 179 Pa.Super. 1, 115 A.2d 811. There was no abuse of discretion in requiring these three defendants to be tried together.

The Commonwealth introduced into evidence slips of paper containing reference to bets made on April 14th, 16th and 18th, as well as on April 19th, the date laid in the indictment. The appellants contend that this was an effort to prove prior offenses and should not have been admitted.

They rely upon Commonwealth v. Polin, 1940, 140 Pa.Super. 18, 22, 24, 12 A.2d 798, 800. In that case the defendants were indicted for violations of the gambling statutes on August 5th, 12th and 19th. The evidence showed violations on July s7th and about two weeks later. When admitting the evidence as to the violations on dates not mentioned in the indictment, the trial judge ruled as follows: 'I am permitting this to show the familiarity of this man with...